What would you buy and hold if every stock was -40% off?

[DeepState]

Equating Fed off-balance sheet repo facilities (the vast bulk of this magical $16tr gift to the rich) - which were fully collateralised and returned whole - with debt forgiveness on mortgagees is just utterly ill-informed populist inflammatory BS. The primary purpose of central banks is to provide an outlet for liquidity risk to be absorbed. That's what it was doing. Monetary policy implementation came much later and did not in any way take away the importance of being a lender of last resort.

However, crimes were committed in the lead up, in my view, for predatory lending. That's small fish level of operations though. I am wondering where else you think they took place. And some actual rationale... It's not a crime to have an opinion which may turn out to be stupid in retrospect, or to take excessive risk within the law. I am asking about law...not morality as you might see it.

The huge rise in inequality post the crisis highlights the weakness in the capitalism model which is supposed to be countered by democratic governance. Corporate governance was woeful at investment banks. We have dual systems failure at play. It is endemic. This does worry me as Trump is one manifestation of it.

 

[DeepState]

The Big Short, raised earlier, was an excellent representation of what happened. The book was very good. The movie struggles to capture the detail, but gives it a great shot.

My favourite scene is this one. In my view, it captures precisely how the madness came to be without a crime actually having to take place (after a loan was made) and how intertwined risk became. It was utterly stupid. Yet anyone involved in the web usually had a very small part to play. When it unravelled, confusion reigned for a very long time.

It has taken years to understand what happened. Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, Draghi....did bloody well in the circumstances.

 

[kid hustlr]

Re-watched this other night.

Thought the movie was brilliant and steve carrell is just so great in his role.

 

[luutzu]

The Big Short, raised earlier, was an excellent representation of what happened. The book was very good. The movie struggles to capture the detail, but gives it a great shot.

My favourite scene is this one. In my view, it captures precisely how the madness came to be without a crime actually having to take place (after a loan was made) and how intertwined risk became. It was utterly stupid. Yet anyone involved in the web usually had a very small part to play. When it unravelled, confusion reigned for a very long time.

It has taken years to understand what happened. Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, Draghi....did bloody well in the circumstances.

The guy just confessed to fraud at all level but somehow it's "madness... without a crime actually having..." taken place?

 

[luutzu]

Equating Fed off-balance sheet repo facilities (the vast bulk of this magical $16tr gift to the rich) - which were fully collateralised and returned whole - with debt forgiveness on mortgagees is just utterly ill-informed populist inflammatory BS. The primary purpose of central banks is to provide an outlet for liquidity risk to be absorbed. That's what it was doing. Monetary policy implementation came much later and did not in any way take away the importance of being a lender of last resort.

However, crimes were committed in the lead up, in my view, for predatory lending. That's small fish level of operations though. I am wondering where else you think they took place. And some actual rationale... It's not a crime to have an opinion which may turn out to be stupid in retrospect, or to take excessive risk within the law. I am asking about law...not morality as you might see it.

The huge rise in inequality post the crisis highlights the weakness in the capitalism model which is supposed to be countered by democratic governance. Corporate governance was woeful at investment banks. We have dual systems failure at play. It is endemic. This does worry me as Trump is one manifestation of it.

Caring for the poor masses is "populous bs" now is it? I thought that's what a democratic gov't is supposed to do.

Apparently not.

Its jobs is blah blah, here's the so-called $16 trillions. Use it and make poor Americans rich again, or not.

You can use jargon and bs mumbo jumbo all you like, the result of that imaginary bail out that ripped off the bankers is what?

The same group of bankers who was at the helm when their bank crashed and destroy trillions in people's life savings, they're still at the helm - this time, bigger than ever.

It's like a drunk driver plowing down an entire street, the cops call them in, pick the victim's pocket to give the drunk driver more money, let them buy more horse power and be on their way again.

But sure, only ill informed idiots doesn't appreciate blah blah.

 

[DeepState]

However, crimes were committed in the lead up, in my view, for predatory lending. That's small fish level of operations though. I am wondering where else you think they took place. And some actual rationale... It's not a crime to have an opinion which may turn out to be stupid in retrospect, or to take excessive risk within the law. I am asking about law...not morality as you might see it.

Caring for the poor masses is "populous bs" now is it? I thought that's what a democratic gov't is supposed to do.

Apparently not.

Its jobs is blah blah, here's the so-called $16 trillions. Use it and make poor Americans rich again, or not.

You can use jargon and bs mumbo jumbo all you like, the result of that imaginary bail out that ripped off the bankers is what?

The same group of bankers who was at the helm when their bank crashed and destroy trillions in people's life savings, they're still at the helm - this time, bigger than ever.

It's like a drunk driver plowing down an entire street, the cops call them in, pick the victim's pocket to give the drunk driver more money, let them buy more horse power and be on their way again.

But sure, only ill informed idiots doesn't appreciate blah blah.

Evidently this was too much of a hurdle.

 

[DeepState]

The guy just confessed to fraud at all level but somehow it's "madness... without a crime actually having..." taken place?

I must have missed it. Please quote the exact phrase where "fraud at all level (sic)" was admitted....

 

[luutzu]

Evidently this was too much of a hurdle.

You're a fund manager of some sort right?

Ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome?

 

[luutzu]

I must have missed it. Please quote the exact phrase where "fraud at all level (sic)" was admitted....

Did you see the same movie the rest of the world did? Or there's an alternate version for die hard capitalist?

Let me explain it to you from an idiot's point of view why it's fraud, at all level.


The CDO Manager was paid by Merrill Lynch. His office, his staff, his bonuses, his business... was paid for by Merrill Lynch.

Why do they pay him? Because he promote and sell Merrill's junk.

But the investor, the fund manager, who buy his CDOs does not know that.

As far as his investors are concerned, the CDO Manager is independent, represents their interests in advising which CDOs to invest other people's money into.

That's not fraud? False representation? No?

But the fund manager aren't stupid people, obviously. So they do not take the CDO Manager's word for it.

They take the rating agencies "opinion" on these CDOs.

It's all AAA.

Why or how are these pieces of garbage AAA? Because of Moodys don't rate it AAA, S&P down the street will.

So that's three level of fraud. No?


How about the fund manager, the investor.

What the hell are they paid so handsomely for? Where was their sense of responsibility to do their job. You know, look into the prospectus, read the fine print, think a little.

They were entrusted with people's life savings; paid very well for that secret skill... and they just take the word of salesman and rating agencies.

-----------

It's a perfect crime.

Give every jackass their plausible deniability; let them blame the other guy who blame the other guy who eventually blame the small working slob who had nothing whatsoever to do with all these shiet beside being force by their gov't to put their super somewhere.

 

[DeepState]

You're a fund manager of some sort right?

Ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome?

Comprehension of straight statements, Basic Arithmetic, Policy and Law are clearly too challenging and now you want to switch to psychology? Oh please spare yourself.

You clearly care about some notion of justice. Good. I'll leave it at that.

 

[luutzu]

Comprehension of straight statements, Basic Arithmetic, Policy and Law are clearly too challenging and now you want to switch to psychology? Oh please spare yourself.

You clearly care about some notion of justice. Good. I'll leave it at that.

"When plunder becomes a way of life, men create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. " -- Frederic Bastiat

Let's pass an idiotic law. That's how truth and justice is done.


"When misguided public opinion honors what is despicable and despises what is honorable, punishes virtue and rewards vice, encourages what is harmful and discourages what is useful, applauds falsehood and smothers truth under indifference or insult, a nation turns its back on progress and can be restored only by the terrible lessons of catastrophe." -- Frederic Bastiat


You think those courtiers and nobility of old never have arithmetic and law to justify their taking from the poor and giving it to themselves?

They even bring out magic, god, heavenly mandate to justify the need for their palaces and fine food while the country starve for all they care.

That kind of system does not last. It ends with the masters having their heads chopped off.

 

[DeepState]

"When plunder becomes a way of life, men create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. " -- Frederic Bastiat

Let's pass an idiotic law. That's how truth and justice is done.


"When misguided public opinion honors what is despicable and despises what is honorable, punishes virtue and rewards vice, encourages what is harmful and discourages what is useful, applauds falsehood and smothers truth under indifference or insult, a nation turns its back on progress and can be restored only by the terrible lessons of catastrophe." -- Frederic Bastiat


You think those courtiers and nobility of old never have arithmetic and law to justify their taking from the poor and giving it to themselves?

They even bring out magic, god, heavenly mandate to justify the need for their palaces and fine food while the country starve for all they care.

That kind of system does not last. It ends with the masters having their heads chopped off.

I can't believe this day has come, but I agree with what you have posted..... as it relates to the US, but less so in Australia, Europe (incl UK) and Japan. Trump is the first strong indication of revolution in the air. Except, once again, the downtrodden choose someone who makes their lot even worse when expressing dissent. The US has a choice to make about what to do from here. It is more of an oligarchy than democracy. I hope a strong, independent, candidate emerges that brings a nation together and that political engagement rises again. Yet you have Fox News determining trans-Atlantic security posture. I blame the Republicans since Clinton.

Yet Bastiat, for his moral musings, is Austrian School. The Austrian School would do away with many of the interventions you had mentioned. It would also do away with credit and fiat currency. So we wouldn't have a credit crisis. We'd just have a different set of problems that come with that setup which are no less vexing.

 

[luutzu]

I can't believe this day has come, but I agree with what you have posted..... as it relates to the US, but less so in Australia, Europe (incl UK) and Japan. Trump is the first strong indication of revolution in the air. Except, once again, the downtrodden choose someone who makes their lot even worse when expressing dissent. The US has a choice to make about what to do from here. It is more of an oligarchy than democracy. I hope a strong, independent, candidate emerges that brings a nation together and that political engagement rises again. Yet you have Fox News determining trans-Atlantic security posture. I blame the Republicans since Clinton.

Yet Bastiat, for his moral musings, is Austrian School. The Austrian School would do away with many of the interventions you had mentioned. It would also do away with credit and fiat currency. So we wouldn't have a credit crisis. We'd just have a different set of problems that come with that setup which are no less vexing.

They did say that wisdom come with age. Sometime a lot of age will have to past, but you're getting there.

Yes, fortunate for us, Australia is not where the US is. But like all things in Australia, Hollywood movies will get here after a couple of weeks; its technology a couple of months; its minor policies a couple of years; and its major screw up in a couple of decade.

US didn't get where it is after Clinton though. It heats up with Reagan; Clinton carried it on, this time with Jazz and cool Southern charm.

Bill Clinton ramp up Reagan/Bush Sr. deregulation drive; bring the Dems Right of the Republicans.

 

[DeepState]

They did say that wisdom come with age. Sometime a lot of age will have to past, but you're getting there.

Yes, fortunate for us, Australia is not where the US is. But like all things in Australia, Hollywood movies will get here after a couple of weeks; its technology a couple of months; its minor policies a couple of years; and its major screw up in a couple of decade.

US didn't get where it is after Clinton though. It heats up with Reagan; Clinton carried it on, this time with Jazz and cool Southern charm.

Bill Clinton ramp up Reagan/Bush Sr. deregulation drive; bring the Dems Right of the Republicans.

Reagan (and Thatcher) were only doing what your bestie, Bestiat, would have wanted.

I wasn't referring to deregulation when talking about the Clinton era. I was referring to governance and the ability of elected representatives to prioritise the people in a bipartisan way, as necessary, when enacting legislation. It's disintegration can be traced back to those times, along with an enduring erosion of public trust in the government and effectiveness in preventing excessive inequality.

Wherever 'there' is for you right now, it takes a certain set of abilities to get there and remain firmly there. Maybe, in no less than 100 years, our abilities might become more similar.

 

[luutzu]

Reagan (and Thatcher) were only doing what your bestie, Bestiat, would have wanted.

I wasn't referring to deregulation when talking about the Clinton era. I was referring to governance and the ability of elected representatives to prioritise the people in a bipartisan way, as necessary, when enacting legislation. It's disintegration can be traced back to those times, along with an enduring erosion of public trust in the government and effectiveness in preventing excessive inequality.

Wherever 'there' is for you right now, it takes a certain set of abilities to get there and remain firmly there. Maybe, in no less than 100 years, our abilities might become more similar.

Wit's getting a bit blunt there DS.

Nice try but Reagan and Thatcher does what Bestiat wanted the same way all capitalists does what Adam Smith recommended.

You do realise that Smith was against the vile maxim the masters of mankind always follow: all for ourselves and screw everybody else.

Being an enlightened and free thinker moral philosopher, Smith and Bestiat would be turning in their graves if they hear how their good names are being used by the current oligarch and their useful idiots.

 

[Klogg]

It has taken years to understand what happened. Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, Draghi....did bloody well in the circumstances.

This is 100% accurate. From the very little that I do understand of it all (and that's after the fact), I can see how close we came to economic Armageddon. It's plain ignorance to state that institutions should not have been bailed out, as if it was a black and white decision.

Geithner's book, Stress Test, is well worth a read, because it sheds a little bit of light on how they were thinking at the time.

 

[DeepState]

Wit's getting a bit blunt there DS.

Nice try but Reagan and Thatcher does what Bestiat wanted the same way all capitalists does what Adam Smith recommended.

You do realise that Smith was against the vile maxim the masters of mankind always follow: all for ourselves and screw everybody else.

Being an enlightened and free thinker moral philosopher, Smith and Bestiat would be turning in their graves if they hear how their good names are being used by the current oligarch and their useful idiots.

It appears that yet another straw man just materialised from thin air. Hello.

Bestiat was even more free market (lower role for government beyond very basic protections) than Hayek. In turn, Hayek, was the primary economic influence behind Thatcher and whose policies and thoughts are also abundantly found in Reagan's significant moves towards market fundamentalism (a la supply-side economics, Laffer Curve). The thoughts and philosophies of both are at the core of the Austrian School free market philosophy which also strongly argues against redistribution of wealth, amongst many things. In both cases of the UK and US, wealth inequality rose as would be expected when such policies are implemented. If you wish to argue that Thatcher and Reagan partook in legalised plunder, thereby besmirching Bestiat's memory, feel free to shout at the moon with all your straw friends.

Last one for this thread.

 

[luutzu]

This is 100% accurate. From the very little that I do understand of it all (and that's after the fact), I can see how close we came to economic Armageddon. It's plain ignorance to state that institutions should not have been bailed out, as if it was a black and white decision.

Geithner's book, Stress Test, is well worth a read, because it sheds a little bit of light on how they were thinking at the time.

Sure bail them out. Why not.

But does a bail out mean just giving them more money, then leaving them as they were? Just bigger, controlling more of the nation's capital; same group of executives still in place.

The same guys, the same institutions, the same regulatory infrastructure that brought the world to the brink of Armageddon... are still in place.

Forget about the moral, philosophical argument. This is just setting the world on fire again. We all know it, don't we?

 

[luutzu]

It appears that yet another straw man just materialised from thin air. Hello.

Bestiat was even more free market (lower role for government beyond very basic protections) than Hayek. In turn, Hayek, was the primary economic influence behind Thatcher and whose policies and thoughts are also abundantly found in Reagan's significant moves towards market fundamentalism (a la supply-side economics, Laffer Curve). The thoughts and philosophies of both are at the core of the Austrian School free market philosophy which also strongly argues against redistribution of wealth, amongst many things. In both cases of the UK and US, wealth inequality rose as would be expected when such policies are implemented. If you wish to argue that Thatcher and Reagan partook in legalised plunder, thereby besmirching Bestiat's memory, feel free to shout at the moon with all your straw friends.

Last one for this thread.

You're under the impression that what the world economies operate on is this thing call "free market".

Free trade, free market, competitive advantage of nations blah blah... those are for weak, colonised nations.

For real economies, it's the nanny state... dating back to Egypt and its Pyramid schemes.

What Reagan and Thatcher did was simple class warfare: taking from the masses, give it all to the rich.

That's how societies have always been managed. Only difference with these two hacks is they got more theatrical and hire "intellectual" sellouts to put the "economics" and the fancy maths behind it.

Enough from me too.

btw, you sure about Asaleo? Seriously?

 

[skc]

Last one for this thread.

I gave you a like because you managed to remain in a prolonged exchange with someone who's known to have never lose an argument on this forum. He makes every rational person regret his/her decision to engage in discussion. I applaud your courage and effort.... but let's face it, you never stood a chance.

Here's a good example...made a calculation error by a factor of 1,000 - basis of argument still stands!

At $500K, then $5Trillion.
what about at $250K?